This site is the blogging component for my main site Crank Astronomy (formerly "Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy"). It will provide a more interactive component for discussion of the main site content. I will also use this blog to comment on work in progress for the main site, news events, and other pseudoscience-related issues.

Monday, September 27, 2010

The site advertises a conference, scheduled for November 6, 2010 in South Bend, Indiana. The topic “Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right. First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism“.
I had meant to write sooner on this topic, but a number of other blogs have given it some entertaining attention.

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy, September 14, 2010. Geocentrism? Seriously? Phil notes the distinction of geocentrism as a reference frame, a convenient way to relate measurements, and Geocentrism as a physically distinct frame that defines an absolute rest, so that the Earth is unmoving, unmovable, and not even rotating. Astronomers use alternative references frames all the time - choosing the frames convenient for the analysis of the problem at hand - there are a number of them for the Earth and the Sun, which I utilize in my day job.

One of the more entertaining aspects of the “Galileo was Wrong” site, is the number of Ph.Ds, some in physical sciences, listed under “Reviews”. Not surprisingly, I could find NO evidence that any of these Ph.D. geocentrists have done any work in space-based technologies where their Geocentric beliefs are actually applied to do real things. None of them appear to be involved in computing complex interplanetary satellite trajectories, or even launching satellites into orbit. (My favorite quote is from the aerospace engineer who conveniently doesn't tell you about the other reference frames that are important for GPS operation. In my post, Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS & Relativity, I list a number of references on how GPS actually works. Some of these are texts used for teaching others how to properly decode the signals for designing new applications.)

Like most pseudo-sciences, its practitioners never actually apply their 'science' in developing real technologies in areas where their 'science' would make a difference.

I am one of the presenters at the Conference, and would simply like to invite the interested observer to review our discussion over on the Hartnett Pt. 1 thread.

I appreciate that there is a temptation on the part of the mainstream to assume incompetence on the part of geocentrists and therefore to descend to gratuitous snarkiness. But the simple truth,Tom, is that if Phil Plait's article is the best you guys can do, you are going to be in for some extremely rough sledding after November 6.

There are very challenging, multiple instances of quite recent observational evidence (WMAP Axis of Evil, SDSS periodicity in galaxy count over redshift) that pose very serious problems for the Copernican principle.

One does not advance the actual goal of science- which is the determination, to an ever less-imperfect degree, of the actual principles underlying the phenomena we observe- by engaging in the kind of cynical, agitprop populism exemplified by, especially, Plait's botch job. It just won't do.

Now, I am all for good old-fashioned polemics in service of controversy, but at least make sure you are scoring points against the opposition, and not against a strawman.

Plait is guilty of precisely this fallacy.

I suggest you guys may actually have scored an own-goal here, by framing the terms of the debate in such a way as to render us lil' ol' geocentrists significantly more credible than advertised just so long as we don't drool too noticeably at the lectern :-)￼

I can speak as someone who has to work with planetary & satellite coordinate systems in my day job. Phil Plait is absolutely correct on this matter.

Unless you believe all space flight is a fraud, it is far from a matter of polemics. It is a matter of reality.

No one uses geocentrism to calculate a trajectory from the Earth to another planet. They might occasionally transform to a geocentric system when the spacecraft is near the Earth, but once beyond there, heliocentric and other systems take over. Once complete, they might transform all the points into a geocentric system so ground-based tracking stations can use it - but it is a matter of convenience.

Congratulations, Tom, we both agree that the inverse square law works to find LaGrange points in the solar system!

Behold how good and pleasant it is....................

Even Newton's approach- which invokes spooky action at a distance and makes not even an attempt to physically *derive* the inverse square law upon which its predictions depend- works beautifully on these scales.

But to suggest that because Newton works nicely in the solar system, therefore Newton must be universally true, is exactly analogous to a sailor implying that, since he can use Ptolemy to navigate from port A to port B, he will have thereby proven geocentrism.

Obviously, Tom, LaGrange points exist as solutions to Euler's 3-body problem, and Newton has no monopoly on these solutions.

Equally obviously, there are more than three bodies in the Universe.

We observe devastating anomalies when attempting to account for all observations (including those pesky ones *outside* near-Earth space) based upon the Newtonian assumptions behind Fg = k*M1*M2/r2

So, yes, Tom.

Geocentrism perfectly accounts for LaGrange points.

It has the additional advantages of accounting for the observed periodicities in galaxy count over redshift, the results of Michelson Morley Miller and Sagnac (plus all modern sequelae), the reason why the GPS and JPL deep space navigation software only treat "c" as constant in *one* frame (as I told you before, Tom- it ain't the solar system barycenter)-- oh and by the way that very interesting little Axis in the CMB- the one that is pointing like a huge, universe spanning arrow, directly at....well.

It ain't the "galacto" in galactocentric, Tom- although I have nothing (gastronomically!) against against a Milk-centered universe mind you......

It is the "geo".

As in "geocentric".

We'll talk more now, perhaps, now that we have finished the Conference. I can tell you it was hugely successful- far beyond even our expectations- and that there will definitely be a Second Annual.

We intend to invite Laurence Krauss, since his quote here was a serious buzz-inducer at the Conference:

“...when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.”

Amazing, isn't it, how geocentrism is turning up in the strangest places all of a sudden?

quote:[stuff deleted]But to suggest that because Newton works nicely in the solar system, therefore Newton must be universally true, is exactly analogous to a sailor implying that, since he can use Ptolemy to navigate from port A to port B, he will have thereby proven geocentrism.

Among real scientists, such a bold statement implies this calculation has actually been done.

Since this is a fairly straightforward analysis in a Newtonian and non-geocentric framework that undergraduate physics students are expected to do (and I have done it), you are required to prove that this analysis has been done in the physically geocentric model.

Identify all five Lagrangian points using a strictly geocentric calculation with full mathematical detail FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES, i.e. the claimed geocentric physics behind it, presenting the equations of motion, etc. (Wikipedia - lagrange points). Post the solution on a web site and send me the link. The positional solutions must be identical to those found in Newtonian non-geocentric case and should properly identify the Lagrange points of the Earth-Sun system (STEREO @ L4 & L5, Sentinels of the Heliosphere at L1, WMAP @ L2), the Earth-Moon system (ARTEMIS at L1 & L2), and the Sun-Jupiter system (Trojan asteroids). Note that operating missions have made, or are making use of up to four of the five points. We've not yet found a good use for L3 points that warrants a visit.

And no cheating - claiming that the result is the same as the non-geocentric case with a coordinate transformation to the geocentric frame is physically indistinguishable from the frame of reference designation - which can be done anywhere in the universe and makes all frames equivalent. There is no universal or physically preferred rest frame by this method on any scale less than the CMB.

Bear in mind that if a professional scientist were to make a claim such as yours for a problem as trivial as this, and be unable to back it up, they would be suspected of fraud. However, I suspect a better term might be your own term: 'blithering incompetent'. ;^)

Currently, the PSD topic has about nine parts. At one per week, that gives you just over two months to present your analysis before I start posting mine, assuming I don't deal with GPS issues first.

Part IIquote:[stuff deleted]We'll talk more now, perhaps, now that we have finished the Conference. I can tell you it was hugely successful- far beyond even our expectations- and that there will definitely be a Second Annual.

I hear many of your attendees were there for laughs (Skepticality #143, Skepticality #144). I had hoped to attend since it was just a day's drive away, but things were just too busy.

quote:We intend to invite Laurence Krauss, since his quote here was a serious buzz-inducer at the Conference:

[stuff deleted]

I've actually spoken to Lawrence Krauss after a talk he gave a few weeks ago. I've sent him an e-mail to expect your call.

Wow--quite a shock that geocentrism still has adherents in the modern day. Given what I've read so far, I don't get why a Mars-centered universe doesn't fit observations just as well as the proposed geocentric one. Would the geocentrists throw in the towel if a Martian Michelson-Morley experiment also gave a null result?

To Chris:I think the current claim is probably some type of 'aether drag' would explain this. The real problem is a free-flying spacecraft with an MMX-like experiment.

There are Michelson Interferometers flying in Earth orbit and beyond which could in-principle, show similar effects. Resonance cavities would also have problems with geocentrism models if the Earth defined a fixed velocity for light.

I'm assembling a number of posts on this topic which I am releasing at a rate of about once per week.

Search This Blog

About Me

I obtained my doctorate in physics and astronomy in 1994. I currently work in scientific data visualization for the media and public outreach. For more information on how I became involved in the creationism issue, visit my main page